Show Menu
Cheatography
  1. Home >
  2. Education >

The Ecosystemic Approach Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

This is a summary of chapter 15 in the textbook, Personology: from the individual to the ecosystem by C Moore, HG Viljoen and WF Meyer. All credits go to the authors of the book. Please note that the two Views of the personality is an error.

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

The View of the Person Underlying the Theory

The theorist’s view of what is common to all people.
For a theorist to be able to describe and explain human behaviour adequa­tely, he or she must have certain opinions about or answers to such basic questions like:
*What is the meaning of life?
 
* What are human beings primary concerns
 
* What is their behaviour directed towards?
 
* What is the human being’s place in the overall scheme of the world?

The View of the Person Underlying the Theory

A human being- a subsystem within a hierarchy of larger systems, such as the family and the community.
A person assigns meaning to everything he or she comes into contact with, and that this meaning represents ‘reality’ for that person
Recognises the important role played by the language a person uses when assigning meaning.
 
- Meaning exists solely in verbal or non-verbal language, which the person reveals to himself or herself through internal dialogue, or to others through external dialogue
 
- The meaning a person attaches to a topic or an experience is determined by the person, and not by the topic or experi­ence.
Self-c­reated ‘reality’ thus directs behaviour.
 
- The network of meanings- the manner in which an individual looks at the world.
   
 It reflects his or her needs, wishes, goals, values and priori­ties; but it also represents the needs, wishes, values, ideas and beliefs of the larger systems of which the person is a part, and the intera­ctional patterns between these systems.

Background

The ecosys­temic approach is an integr­ation of certain fields of study, such as system theory, ecology and cybern­etics.
These fields of study have a number of overla­pping assump­tions and their episte­mol­ogies are compatible
Episte­mology- a particular way of thinking, which determines how we know and understand the world around us.
Ecology- the fundam­ental assumption that all things in nature are related to one another in a complex but systematic way.
Cybern­etics deals with relati­ons­hips, patterns and commun­ication systems and the principles that govern the distri­bution of inform­ation.
An ecosys­temic episte­mology in psychology- assumes that the emphasis is on discov­ering the commun­ication networks in systems and subsystems and on the transa­ctions that take place in a particular context.

The Develo­pment of Ecosys­temic Thinking

Newtonian Thinking
 
Newton held an ontolo­gical view
- there is an objective reality that can be discovered and that the world is therefore unders­tan­dable, contro­llable and predic­table.
 
Newtonian thinking rests on the three basic assump­tions:
1. Reduct­ionism or atomism- phenomena or objects can be reduced to their most basic elements as a means of unders­tanding the whole phenomenon or object
   
2. Linear causality- it is accepted that the elements are bound to one another by cause and effect
   
3. Object­ivity- the truth can only be discovered if phenomena or objects are observed in an objective way and are not influenced by the observer.
The ecosys­temic approach leans especially heavily on constr­uct­ivism
 
Constr­uct­ivism- ‘reality’ is created by the observer, and there can thus be no question of one correct, objective reality.
General System Theory
 
General System Theory- systems consist of smaller elements or subsystems but, in turn, are also part of larger supra-­sys­tems.
 
Systems form a hierarchy of related systems, and human functi­oning is studied in terms of the intera­ctional patterns within and between systems
Cybern­etics
 
Cybern­etics has to do with the basic principles underlying the control, regula­tion, exchange and processing of inform­ation.
 
First-­order cybern­etics- emphasises the observ­ation of patterns, and different ways in which events, experi­ences or phenomena are organised
   
- The assumption is that the observer can take up a position outside the observed system and describe the intera­ctions object­ively.
 
Second­-order cybern­etics- proposes a higher­-order cybern­etics whereby the observer becomes part of the system.
   
- The recursive connec­tions between systems include the connection between the observer and the observed system
 
Third-­order cybern­etics- applies to semiotic systems.
   
- Semiotic systems are directed at making something meaningful by giving it a name, design­ation or a signif­ication
Constr­uct­ivism
 
- People create their ‘reali­ties’ through the meanings they link to what they observe
 
A constr­uct­ivist point of view- there can be no question of one correct, objective truth or reality, and ‘reality’ is created by the observer, who acts in accordance with his or her ‘reality’ and looks for corrob­oration of that ‘reality’.
 
A radical constr­uct­ivist- who does not acknow­ledge the two-way or recursive nature of the intera­ction between the observer and the observed, runs the risk of being described as solips­istic.
   
- A solipsist believes that reality actually exists only in the mind of the observer, and the observ­ation is not influenced by feedback from what is observed
Social Constr­uct­ionism
 
Social constr­uct­ionism expands constr­uct­ivist thinking by including the important role that social and cultural contexts play in the way we interpret the world or create meaning.
   
- The role of social constr­uctions should be recognised in multic­ultural encounters
   
- People tend to adhere to these socially constr­ucted belief systems, despite the fact that their personal realities may not fit the socially constr­ucted reality.

The Structure of the Person­ality

Human Ecosystems
 
- Psychology came to regard human functi­oning in terms of larger wholes or systems and the impact of interd­epe­ndent systems upon another was also highli­ghted.
 
- The individual is a subsystem within larger systems and having subsystems of its own which all interact
 
- Although the individual is central in the human ecosystem it is essential to take the context into consid­eration when examining human behaviour
 
- Systems are regarded as synerg­istic.
Synerg­istic- the whole is always more than the sum of its parts.
Punctu­ation
 
- The differ­ences we perceive make the difference and determine the kinds of relati­onships or patterns we see.
 
Punctu­ation- the activity whereby events or experi­ences are organised in a particular way.
 
- The notion of different possible punctu­ations underlines the existence of different realities
   
‘both/and’ position- where realities exist side by side, and one reality is not regarded as more valid than another.
 

The Dynamics of the Person­ality

The Structure Determ­ination of Systems
 
The self-d­ete­rminism of systems
- Systems are not directly influenced by indepe­ndent, external agents.
   
- The functi­oning of the system is determined by the organi­sation and structure of the system itself.
 
A system- organi­sat­ionally closed, because a system cannot continue to exist if its organi­sation is relinq­uished.
 
Organi­sation- what defines the system as a unified entity
 
The structure- the particular compos­ition and config­uration of its components
- The structure of a system therefore determines how it can be used.
   
- Systems cannot be directly influenced from outside, they are regarded as inform­ati­onally closed they are regarded as struct­urally determined.
 
- In living organisms, organi­sation remains essent­ially unchanged, while the structure of the system changes consta­ntly.
 
- Pertur­bation is used to refer to the fluctu­ations in a system
The Autonomy Systems
 
-Because the actions of a system are determined by its structure, systems are autono­mous, or self-r­egu­lating
   
- If a system loses its autonomy and can no longer determine its own actions, it is no longer able to operate as a system
 
- Systems strive to retain their autonomy.
   
- A system may even cling to patterns that an observer might regard as a symptom of dysfun­ction in a desperate attempt to retain its autonomy.
Intera­ctions Within and Between Systems: Stability and Change
 
- The intera­ctions within and between systems should be seen in terms of patterns that connect, and that intera­ction takes place through circular feedback loops.
Feedback loops are apparent in the form of:
1. Positive feedback- when feedback gives rise to changes in the system
   
- Sets in motion changes
 
2. Negative feedback- when feedback brings about no change
   
- Stabilises the system by minimising any pertur­bations and keeping the system as stable or unchanged as possible
 
- The processes of stabil­isation and growth cause a dynamic movement in the system, but the two processes balance one another in such a way that a dynamic equili­brium or balance is maintained in the system.
   
Homeos­tatic principle- The energy within the system is distri­buted among the parts of the system in such a way that a condition of equili­brium is reached.
 
General system theory also rests on the principles of equifi­nality and equipo­ten­tiality
   
1. Equifi­nality- the final position or result is the same or equiva­lent, although the initial position may be different.
   
2. Equipo­ten­tiality- the original position or potential is the same, while different final conditions or effects may be obtained.
 
- Different paths may be followed in the process of change, and that a condition of balance can be reached through self-r­egu­lating, homeos­tatic functions.
 
- Where drastic transf­orm­ations take place, it is accepted that the boundaries of the system are relatively open, and that influences from within and outside the system affect its existing functi­oning in an unpred­ictable way.

Views on Psyhco­pat­hology

Pathology- is present in a system that reveals a lack of balance and/or comple­xity.
 
- While there is a balance between stability and change in a healthy system, there is little change in an unhealthy system because of its relative ‘close­dness’, and the system clings to either the status quo or to ‘samen­ess’.
 
- The entire system is involved in the process of balancing, and that the escalation of an emotion or of a behaviour on the part of one individual can lead to an escalation in the opposite emotion or behaviour in other members of the system.
 
- Symptoms are regarded as metaphors for the relati­onships in the family.
* a symptom says something about the dynamics of the system – it tells the story of the repetitive feedback loops in which the system is trapped

Optimal Functi­oning

Ideal or optimal functi­oning is seen as a relati­onship between the individual and a system in which the functi­oning of both is maximised
 
- Congruent state of optimal functi­oning- a dynamic, complex equili­brium or integr­ation, where one entity, or relati­onship, or pattern of relati­onships is not maximised to the detriment of another part of the system, or relati­onship, or pattern of relati­ons­hips.
 
- Healthy individual is charac­terised by complex sets of diverse behaviours and emotions that function in a dynamic equili­brium.
 
- Healthy develo­pment also implies a balance between stability and change.
A healthy system is relatively open to different experi­ences that will involve transf­orm­ation to a higher level of comple­xity, but it also retains enough ‘sameness’ to protect the stability of the system.
 

Implic­ations and Applic­ations

 

Psycho­therapy

Early Therap­eutic Orient­ations
The Structure Orient­ation
General structure theory stimulated an awareness of the prominent role of hierar­chical organi­sation within the family system, and within larger systems
 
Structural family therapy- if the boundaries of defined hierar­chies within a system were destroyed, this would have a detrim­ental effect on the system.
 
- Problems in families arise when there is a lack of clarity about the boundaries that define structures in the family, and when coalitions and alliances, formed over genera­tions, impair the hierar­chies within the family system.
 
- A healthy family system displays a structure that has flexible or adjustable boundaries between the parent subsystem, the child subsystem and the outside world, and in which the hierarchy is not disturbed.
Enmeshed- families with diffuse boundaries
   
Disengaged- families with rigid boundaries
   
The boundaries between systems should therefore be permeable, but neither too loose nor too rigid
 
A structural therapist is expected to transcend technique and to give precedence to his or her role as ‘healer of people in pain’
The Strategic Orient­ation
Strategic family therapists concen­trate mainly on the family as a system, but will often also include members of the wider family and larger social systems.
 
- Control is an important theme in strategic therapy
 
- The therapist functions from a position of power outside the family, and it is his or her respon­sib­ility to plan strategies around the problem in order to solve it.
This acknow­ledges the idea of open systems
 
The symptom- an analogy for the problem, or a metaph­orical repres­ent­ation of it.
 
- Therapist invents altern­ative realities and offers or prescribes these to the family, couple or partners.
* Team approach is usually adopted in strategic therapy
   
* One therapist conducts the session, while the rest of the team observes the therap­eutic processes from behind a one-way mirror.
The Transition from Early to Later Orient­ations: The Milan Group
 
-Follow the Palo Alto model of the Mental Research Institute (MRI).
*Used as a basis for resear­ching the commun­ication patterns of schizo­phrenic family members.
 
- Originally the Milan group focused on identi­fying homeos­tatic, repetitive intera­ctional patterns within the family system which, they felt, maintained the ‘patho­logy’
 
- In their research with families with schizo­phrenic members, they gave particular attention to the notion of a ‘double bind’
Double bind-the role of confli­cting messages in the develo­pment of schizo­phrenic patterns.
 
A double bind exists when someone is exposed to confli­cting messages.
* A person may receive a message to take his or her own sponta­neous decisions, but simult­ane­ously receives another message that his or her decisions should be in line with the wishes of others.
   
* The Milan group would prescribe an interv­ention which they called a counter paradox, aimed at freeing the family so that it could change
 
- This interv­ention consisted of attaching a positive connot­ation to the behaviour and requesting the family not to change it (the behaviour)
 
Bateson’s theory emphasises the recursive nature of intera­ctional commun­ication patterns
Codings or transf­orm­ations- the rules or ‘laws’ that connect the ideas and make it possible for the observer to see patterns
   
* A family’s view of their behaviour, or the meaning they attached to it, was not the same as the patterns of behaviour themse­lves.
 
- Instead of focusing on patterns of behaviour, they examined the meanings ascribed to behaviour in a particular context by members of the family, and paid attention to the messages conveyed by the behaviour.
Interv­iewing methods
 
Hypoth­esising- therapists will formulate a hypothesis about family relati­onships on the basis of the inform­ation available, and that this hypothesis will enable them to gather further inform­ation in a meaningful way, to test the hypothesis and to propose a new hypothesis on the basis of the additional inform­ation.
 
Circular questi­oning- a reciprocal pattern of commun­ication between therapist and system, in which the therapist asks a question and listens carefully to the feedback from the system before asking a further question.
 
Triadic questions- athird person is asked to comment on the relati­onship between two other people
 
Neutrality- the neutrality of the therap­ist’s position.
 
Curiosity- revised version of these princi­ples:
- formul­ating a hypothesis is essent­ially a technique, and assumes that the therapist knows better than the family, curiosity represents a relati­onship in which the therapist listens attent­ively to the family’s hypoth­eses, or rather, the stories the family tells about itself.
   
- circular questi­oning becomes linked with curiosity, the questions the therapist poses are directed at bringing existing meaning structures under the spotlight and consid­ering other ‘reali­ties’.
   
- the role of partic­ipant facili­tator within an autonomous system
Later Orient­ations
 
Based on the principles of second­-order cybern­etics and constr­uct­ivism.
 
- A focus on intera­ctional patterns within and between systems, on complexity and on context, but the therapist now partic­ipates actively as an observer of the intera­ctional processes
 
Therapist includes himself or herself as a co-creator and facili­tator in the co-evo­lution of new, shared realities within the system.
 
- Second­-order therapy is an attempt to create a context for change rather than specif­ically suggesting ways of changing.
 
- Aesthetic wisdom has to do with a shift in the personal predis­pos­itions of the therapist.
* Shift means that therapists will realise that their knowledge of the intera­ctions within and between systems will always be limited, and that they will never have a big enough picture of the whole to allow them to make accurate predic­tions
Acknow­ledges the autonomous nature of systems and that it is grounded upon constr­uct­ivism.
 
- The team approach continues to be used in some cases, but now with the aim of generating altern­ative perspe­ctives through a co-evo­lution of ideas among team members.
Social constr­uct­ionism
 
- People can deny their own personal stories or narratives in favour of so-called ‘grand narrat­ives’ that reflect the shared beliefs of a particular social or cultural context.
 
- Therapist is challenged to also listen to the non-do­minant stories that clients tell and to use this inform­ation in the co-con­str­uction of new meanings and the facili­tation of change.

Education

Assumes all the role players in the educat­ional context partic­ipate in the co-evo­lution of the ideas that surround the educat­ional structure and process.
Learning material- the emphasis should lie with larger wholes
The educat­ional relati­onship
- The education process would imply a dialogical conver­sation between teacher and pupil, and that a consensus would have to be reached through the co-evo­lution of ideas.
 
- The process could not be directed towards discov­ering one truth, but towards detecting connec­tions that enable pupils to move to a more complex level of meaning.
The complexity of the teaching system would have to fi¬nd a balance and a harmony
 
- It involves a ‘both/and’ approach, not an ‘eithe­r/or’ approach.

Research

The new approaches represent the constr­uct­ivist thinking we encounter in the ecosys­temic approach.
A positivist framework, it is accepted that there is a definite reality that the researcher can know.
- Reality is then object­ively examined from outside, and experi­mental research methods are used because the observ­ations have to take place under strictly controlled condit­ions.
Research is undertaken on the basis of a ‘new wave’ paradigm
- The assumption of one correct, objective reality is rejected, and it is accepted, instead, that a multitude of realities exist side by side.
 
- Research is therefore not an attempt to reveal the truth about a reality or to determine whether a particular repres­ent­ation of the reality is true or correct. It is an explor­ation of different realities.
 
- The researcher is not regarded as an observer, but as a partic­ipant in the intera­ction processes within the system that is being invest­igated
 
- The research process is seen as a dialectic between experi­encing and explan­ation or descri­ption, where the one feeds back recurs­ively into the other.
Experi­mental methods are not applied under strictly controlled condit­ions.
- The researcher partic­ipates in the co-evo­lution or the shared constr­uction of ideas within the system under invest­iga­tion.
 
- Intera­ctional patterns are explored, and the consensus is sought on meanings within the system, but this is still regarded as one possible constr­uction of reality.
Such an approach requires a transp­arent research process, in which the researcher reveals the material and how it is organised to the reader.
- It is then up to the reader to decide whether the process whereby the researcher has tried to make sense of the inform­ation does
Research will be qualit­ative
A limited number of people are usually involved in the research.

The Interp­ret­ation and Handling of Aggression

There would be no attempt, to suggest univer­sally valid causes of aggression or explan­ations of it.
Many forms of functi­oning can, be experi­enced as aggressive in the family or in the community, and the precise meaning of aggression would therefore have to be explored within the system concerned.
 
- In the family, it would have to be establ­ished:
a. Who behaves aggres­sively towards whom;
   
b. How this behaviour is displayed and in what circum­sta­nces;
   
c. What the effect is on other members of the family; and
   
d. What meaning is assigned to aggression in the family or community.
 
In the therap­eutic context, an unusual meaning is linked with the word ‘aggre­ssion’.
a. Ecosys­temic therapists should not force their views of what is desirable upon a system.
   
b. They should do no more than partic­ipate in the co-evo­lution of ideas, and present altern­ative realities.
   
c. If a therapist should, however, try to insist on his or her ideas, or prescribe them to the system, he or she becomes guilty of aggres­sion, or more specif­ically, of ‘viole­nce’!
Therap­eutic violence- the therap­ist’s attempt to instruct the family in his or her own pattern.
Violence- holding an opinion to be true such that another’s opinion is untrue and must change.

Evaluation of the Approach

Ecosys­temic thinking developed gradually, and that criticism of earlier views does not necess­arily apply to later thinking.
There was the phase during which strategic and structural therap­eutic techniques placed the therapist in a position of such power that critics expressed their concern over this issue.
- Concern was voiced not only with regard to the definition of human functi­oning as a ‘game’ but also, and more strongly, with regard to the role of the therapist as the ‘master player of games’, who had to play games more skilfully than his or her clients.
 
- Concern about neutrality of the therapist, which led some therapists to work in a cold, distant, uninvolved way.
The central place currently occupied in the approach by constr­uct­ivism does:
 
1. Allow therapists to enter the therap­eutic context with their complete repert­oires of human experi­ences.
 
2. Bring an atmosphere of warmth, congruence and empathy to the therap­eutic context;
 
3. Give heed to both intellect and affect; and
 
4. Offer realities from any theore­tical perspe­ctive as altern­ative constr­uct­ions.
 
This gives the therapist the freedom to partic­ipate creatively in the therap­eutic process.
Improv­isa­tional therapy.
 
- If the therapist enters into the therap­eutic intera­ction with the client with an open mind, a willin­gness to listen and take heed of what is said, and show empathy and respect, the therapist will be able to partic­ipate freely and generate creative altern­ative constr­uct­ions.
Social constr­uction of reality- implies that certain simila­rities will actually exist between the realities that people construct within the same social context.
Co-con­str­uct­ivism- the view that what we know arises in a relati­onship between the knower and the known. It takes for granted that a structured reality exists but recognizes that that reality is constr­ucted or mediated in the sense that different aspects are highli­ghted according to ideas that people indivi­dually or in groups have about it.